83 replies to this topic

[CallawayGolf]

flybynite, on 22 February 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Okay...this how I read and interpret the thing in a nut shell.


USAirways f/a's serve beverages on all flights operated by USAirways pilots but that will not apply if the pilots merge with another carrier's pilot group.

Huh?

Almost. It means that US Airways FAs won't be restricted from serving on flights operated by non-US pilots if a merger occurs. The pilots can battle their integration for years, but the FA will be free to bid and work any flight in a merged operation so long as doing so isn't prevented by another agreement.  It's not taking away provisions, it is increasing opportunities if such an event occurs.

I sure wish our politicians in Washington would read and agonize over every word in a bill like people are doing with this non-issue in the FA contract. If the politicians bothered to read, much less understand, the stuff they vote/sign into law, then nothing would ever get done - and that would be just fine by me - no Obamacare, no increases in the debt ceiling, no Iran/Afghanistan wars, and no NBM/RLA/NLRB to get in between an employer and an employee relationship. We definitely need more people in Washington to vote no when something is too difficult to read and understand. Perhaps some FAs will run for Congress and take that same approach if elected.

[usfliboi]

Either way at this point this contract will pass by a large %.....

[KTM300]

CallawayGolf, on 22 February 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

Almost. It means that US Airways FAs won't be restricted from serving on flights operated by non-US pilots if a merger occurs. The pilots can battle their integration for years, but the FA will be free to bid and work any flight in a merged operation so long as doing so isn't prevented by another agreement.  It's not taking away provisions, it is increasing opportunities if such an event occurs.

If a merger occurs, don't you think that a whole new contract would have to be put in place before you can fly with non-US Airways Pilots?  Please stop and realize what you are thinking is a given with this horrible TA.  

And in response to fliboi's post...I don't know where you are based, but my unscientific calculation from asking those flying the line in CLT is that it is not going to pass.

[700UW]

usfliboi, on 22 February 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

Either way at this point this contract will pass by a large %.....

Hey Karnak,

What's the Powerball #'s for tonight?

Or is is Nostradomus?

[flyus2]

usfliboi, on 22 February 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Reading a contract gets you no where lol! You must understand it and the only way to do that is to get clarification from those who negotiated it.......Anyone done that or is this just someone calling out "The sky is falling"?  What has been the union response to this devastaing news? LOL Amazing all of this and no one seems to have talked the union or those at the table?  Typical of many on this site!

I totally agree with you.  Let's face it...USAirways is a business and the objective is to make money, not to make sure we are all happy.  I believe that at the negotiating table, there were other people there besides management, hence negotiations.  I would be more concerned that those who were there to "protect" the dues paying members allowed certain language to be included.  Go to the roadshows and be heard and get your questions answered...then cast your vote nay or yay...whatever you feel is the right thing to do!

[SparrowHawk]

flyus2, on 22 February 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

I totally agree with you.  Let's face it...USAirways is a business and the objective is to make money, not to make sure we are all happy.  I believe that at the negotiating table, there were other people there besides management, hence negotiations.  I would be more concerned that those who were there to "protect" the dues paying members allowed certain language to be included.  Go to the roadshows and be heard and get your questions answered...then cast your vote nay or yay...whatever you feel is the right thing to do!

Some people who know a thing or two about ways to make gobs upon gobs of money would beg to differ. You'll note the Hero of Tempe isn't among them. Let's face Dougie derives his style more from Frank Lorenzo then he does Herb Kelleher or Gordon Bethune.

The Customer Comes Second

Quote

Hal Rosenbluth, CEO of Rosenbluth International, says you should “put your people first and watch’em kick butt”. (Rosenbluth International is a world leader in corporate travel management, with over 5.000 people in more than 50 countries).

More from the review.

Quote

The book has very moving epilogue, that tells the story of how Rosenbluth handled events after the world trade center attack. Their business literally disappeared overnight. Nobody was travelling anywhere. Decisive action was needed, and they had to fire 100′s of people.

In my opinion, a companies commitment to its values are tested mostly in adversity. And Rosenbluth certainly demonstrated the strength of its peoples commitment to each other and to the company. When the layoffs (or furloughs) were announced, people reacted by voluntarily offering to work for less money. People who could afford it asked to be furloughed in stead of colleagues who couldn’t afford it. Leaders took pay cuts, so less of their people would have to be fired.

And those who were furloughed came by Hal Rosenbluths office in large numbers – to thank him and the company for the good times. I have seen other companies in trouble, and believe me, this sort of behavior is not common.

From Herb Kelleher:The Thought Leader Interview

S+B: Let’s start with some words from your award. You made an “audacious commitment” to putting employees first, customers second, and shareholders third. How did you get away with that for 20 years?

KELLEHER: When I started out, business school professors liked to pose a conundrum: Which do you put first, your employees, your customers, or your shareholders? As if that were an unanswerable question. My answer was very easy: You put your employees first. If you truly treat your employees that way, they will treat your customers well, your customers will come back, and that’s what makes your shareholders happy. So there is no constituency at war with any other constituency. Ultimately, it’s shareholder value that you’re producing.

This is the difference between a thriving travel agency and airline (WN) and The Tempe Frat Boys that run US Airways

[BoeingBoy]

KTM300, on 22 February 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

If a merger occurs, don't you think that a whole new contract would have to be put in place before you can fly with non-US Airways Pilots?  Please stop and realize what you are thinking is a given with this horrible TA.

No, you're wrong.  While it would be more complicated, as long as the FA contract for each side's FA's was complied with, nothing would keep US FA's from flying with the merger partner's pilots and vice versa unless provisions in the FA contracts prevented it.  All that would be required is a single certificate and FA's trained on both carriers equipment.  In fact, you could have a mixed FA crew working the same flight unless something in their contracts prevented it.  Would that be likely?  Given that it would be more complex for scheduling it would depend on the cost of the extra complexity vs the savings of doing so.

The obvious solution is to insist on a transition agreement for the merger, as was the case in the US/HP merger.

Jim

[flybynite]

CallawayGolf, on 22 February 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

Almost. It means that US Airways FAs won't be restricted from serving on flights operated by non-US pilots if a merger occurs. The pilots can battle their integration for years, but the FA will be free to bid and work any flight in a merged operation so long as doing so isn't prevented by another agreement.  It's not taking away provisions, it is increasing opportunities if such an event occurs.

I sure wish our politicians in Washington would read and agonize over every word in a bill like people are doing with this non-issue in the FA contract. If the politicians bothered to read, much less understand, the stuff they vote/sign into law, then nothing would ever get done - and that would be just fine by me - no Obamacare, no increases in the debt ceiling, no Iran/Afghanistan wars, and no NBM/RLA/NLRB to get in between an employer and an employee relationship. We definitely need more people in Washington to vote no when something is too difficult to read and understand. Perhaps some FAs will run for Congress and take that same approach if elected.

Well...this is where it gets hairy....and this isn't a non-issue.

This also can be read to mean that if the pilots merge with another pilot carrier group....then those fa/'s on the USAirways System Seniority List are toast. I don't know how you are getting your interpretation.

And because of this ambiguity...it can and will be used against us.

Sorry, I don't give a Happy Damn about your issues with Obama.